Western Australia is experiencing an economic boom of unprecedented dimension. Not since the gold rush of the 1890's or the nickel and iron boom of the 1960's have we known such full coffers. Our roads are clogged with expensive European cars, massive infrastructure projects are being committed, while the long suffering sectors of Health and Education vie for a piece of the action.

In the midst of this activity, Art is still the poor relation. Our state gallery is underfunded, the ballet searches for a permanent home and the state museum is still in storage.- it seems that a new a footy stadium or Hopman Cup venue are far more important cultural priorities.

And yet the Arts enrich us all in such a profound way, they define our culture and help us interpret the world.

Meanwhile, it's business as usual for the Mark Howlett Foundation. This self funded, pre-sold exhibition is the perfect reminder of how the most under-funded sector of our community just gets on and does it.

Trevor's commission has been a dream. The twenty five subscriptions were snapped up in record time, and Trevor's extraordinary work ethic has seen a prodigious amount of work finished ahead of time- the biggest challenge to the MHF Board has been to get him to stop and put his feet up.

The works themselves are a continuation of Trevor's pre-occupation with the abundant artistic possibilities of the most fundamental shape known to man- the circle. The sun, the moon, a wheel- the perfect shape that is made of one line and is defined by pi. Trevor's investigation of this shape with colour, surface, juxtaposition and making has produced an exhibition of striking and shimmering beauty.

On behalf of the MHF Board, thanks the School of Fine Art and Architecture for hosting the show, to the subscribers for their support and Trevor his fabulous work.

I take great pleasure in commending these works to you.

Peter Hobbs

January 2007

EXCERPTS FROM A CONVERSATION WITH CHRIS HILL

Chris: When asked for a sample of his work to present to the Pope, the great Florentine painter Giotto famously drew a perfect freehand circle as a demonstration of his artistic skill. There are many circles in your work, but there is not much freehand about them. You place a template on the canvas and reach for a spray can. You've dispensed with artists' paints and instead you use house paint straight off the colour chart and you apply it with a roller or spray can. It seems as if you've deliberately tried to do away with any evidence of the artist's touch and I wonder why you have moved in this direction.

Trevor: Well, it's partly because I want to get the shape on to the canvas as directly as I can rather than constructing it out of brush strokes and building it up as a fairly laboured form, and I'm also not interested in imbuing the work with expressionistic marks, or wanting to make a display out of how I've made the work. If I can avoid it I'd rather use a direct, non-gestural means to produce the image.

Chris: So you don't have an agenda to try and subvert the preciousness of high art like, for example, Duchamp or Warhol. That's not what you're doing then, it's more that - - -

Trevor: Well it's more the materials and the way I want to use them.

Chris: And the materials you use are simply more appropriate to what you are trying to achieve?

Trevor: Yes, they seem to be appropriate and they get the best result I want to achieve in the work, which is precise and well made.

Chris: Yes.

Trevor: If anything it's a comment on how making things in our culture is really fairly mechanical and the things that we use and handle, basically aren't made by hand any more.

Chris: Many artists create art because they want to represent part of the world, either symbolically or realistically, or through some sort of narrative. Other artists create art because they want to express ideas or their emotions or inner feelings. Are you trying to either represent anything or express your feelings or emotions through these works?Trevor: No, that's not really my objective and it's not what my interest is in making the work. When I've done the work, I like to look at it and see what it represents to me, but it's always after the event. I generally start with a set of colours and shapes, and a structure and then any response happens when the work's finished, so it's a way of re-connecting with something in a different way from how it was made..

Chris: You talk about looking at works when you've completed them and seeing what emerges. When I look at these paintings, after awhile my eye starts to roam the surface looking for patterns and connections. The works are quite ambiguous and I suppose what I or other viewers see might be different to what you see.

Trevor: Yes.

Chris: So would you agree that, with art such as yours, the viewer has to do a bit more work, the viewer can't just be passive?

Trevor: The viewer can't expect the work to deliver their idea of a good painting. I think probably a good viewer is someone who takes some responsibility for their perception.

Chris: Yes.

Trevor: And they can't expect an artwork to give them everything. They really have to put themselves into the work in order to get something back out that may be of use to them.

Chris: That's right.

Trevor: And of course, because the works are open, there's a range of ways that a viewer could respond to the work, you know, they could use their own personal development, their upbringing, to provide some responses, and they could also have different affinities to certain colours and shapes which will also give them a way of entering into the work. So, the initial barrier that you'd love people to get through is "This doesn't look like something I could recognise - I don't think I should look at it any longer" type of response.

Chris: That's an important point, because I think a lot of people look at contemporary art as if it's a puzzle that they have to solve ­ they expect that suddenly it will click and they'll see what the meaning is.

Trevor: Yes.

Chris: But I think it's not like that.

Trevor: No, because then there'd be no more reason to look at it, would there? You'd have unlocked the secret of the artwork.

Chris: Well I think the beauty of art such as this is that there are so many associations.

Trevor: Yes, that's right.

Chris: There's an internal logic that pulls it all together, but it's a very loose sort of logic.

Trevor: Yes, well there certainly is a structural logic. I hope that it gives each of the panels its own identity and then when you put two panels together you start to have two sets of relationships that can flow from one to the other. You can find common points and certainly you can find differences, but you are being invited to look for similarities when you see two works next to each other, rather than look at the differences, so you can visually try to meld them into one work, and I think that's where perception starts to get involved in the work; to see two things as one even though they both have a separate identity, they are locked into each other, and they continually feed back and forward across the two planes, and this back and forwardness - although it's not really like a conversation - there is an endlessness about it.

Chris: Yes. You can't stop it. Like you're on a loop.

Trevor: Yes, that's a good way to describe it. Like being in a loop, because each work - each panel would stand quite well on its own. I think it's just that it adds an extra dimension. It adds a dimension of play, because on their own they can become quite serious and...

Chris: Static?

Trevor: Because they're square, that makes them even more static, but putting them together creates a different dynamic.

Chris: Yes. So how did you actually do these? Did you create these works as pairs or did you create individual panels and then put them together?

Trevor: It's been a matter of serendipity and this idea that there are particular combinations that generate a third idea. They each have their own conversation but together they create a third set of relationships. I started off by making single works and I'd got one third of the way through the series and realised that it seemed to be a little glib to be producing a

lot of square singular works which were looking quite different, and I wanted the works to look more similar and one idea of making them similar is to pair them together and produce a group of works with a playful joining of structures. Because I had decided to do this in the middle of the project it became a matter of mix and match due to the spontaneity of pairing the works. And if I'd thought to do that in advance and decided that I would do pairs of works which weren't exactly the same and were joined together, I think I might not have got the results I wanted. They would become far more homogenous across the surfaces, and perhaps not as surprising as they have been for me, and hopefully for people who look at them.

Chris: Shall we talk about circles? For some time now your work has been mostly based on the circle. Presumably it has some special significance for you?

Trevor: Yes, I think it's a convenient form for me to use for a few reasons. I can take it in terms of its significance to me as an image. I can look back to the earliest works that I've done, using still life and looking down into cups and looking at saucers and the circular shape of domestic objects. So as far as an image goes you could look at it like that but also as a pure form. I guess when I started making the circle paintings in the late 20th century - sounds epic doesn't it? (laughter) - I was very interested in this notion of all physical objects in the world having a centre.

Chris: Yes.

Trevor: And if all things have a centre then there's a periphery that this thing has.

Chris: By centre you mean like a point of balance or a ...

Trevor: Yes, point of balance where everything around that centre is equal in terms of its mass, but it's really reduced to a flat symbol and I made a lot of works which had a central point and a periphery which was similar to how light emanates from the source and reaches a point where - well, I guess it keeps going for ever.

Chris: Yes.

Trevor: But you see an aura around the light source when ...

Chris: A bit like the ripples when you throw a stone into water.

Trevor: Yes, and it reaches a point where it's like a ring where it's at its most concentrated emanation. So those esoteric phenomena were also part of this choice of a circle with its centre as a motif and using it over and over again establishes it as an identity within the work and enables me to use it in a whole lot of different contexts and different settings.

Chris: In these works the circles are contained by a square format so that you've got a combination of circles and squares

Trevor: Yes, but sometimes it seems that bounding or containing that circle makes it appear to head out to the viewer rather than to the edges of the painting

Chris: Rather than wanting to spread.

Trevor: Yes, and perhaps having two panels abutting each other contributes to that. However, despite the containment within each panel, the viewer is also invited to see the two panels as one work, and then a whole range of visual dynamics comes into play.

Chris: It seems as if you like to create your own barriers or constraints. I'm thinking of the BYOG work where blue, yellow, orange and green were the only colours that you would use for quite some time. Why would you want to limit your freedom in this way?

Trevor: Well, there's quite an interesting thing about making art work which is that you're constantly faced with choices, and one solution is to try and limit those choices, to keep removing choices that are stopping you, and I was finding that becoming an issue about 1999. Making choices about colours seemed to be less interesting and less crucial to making the work. The pieces I made during the residency in Basel were based on those four colours using found material off the street. Then at IASKA, which was a collaborative project with the Kellerberrin community they lent me coloured objects that were similar to those four colours and I produced an installation of those, and then started on more studio based works - paintings and wall pieces. I also made some video works which were related - like the tennis ball painting that you were involved in. For me I was really quite happy to have that limitation based on the work. It seemed to give me more freedom to work in different ways. The colours became almost like tools, that could be used in quite a practical way to mark objects, like the fans and the ironing boards, to give them a set of identities based around colour rather around style, imagery or narrative.

Chris: Yes.

Trevor: But I have enlarged on that a little bit in this project for the Howlett Foundation and I've added three more colours

Chris: There's a light blue and there is a limey green

Trevor: Yes and a light orange colour, which were colours that sort of interested me for a few years prior to the Howlett thing but I haven't used them in works and I thought they would give me a little bit more scope to enlarge my interests in developing colour schemes and give this particular project its own identity.

Chris: The Howlett project has also imposed limitations on what you could do which is interesting. You had to produce 26 works that were all of a similar form, similar size. Have you found that difficult?

Trevor: Well it was a matter of making some decisions before I started because if everyone pays the same amount of money, then they should receive something that's of equal value, and I don't know how to equate art works of different sizes and materials. If they've been produced by the same artist, why have something that's half the size worth the same amount? The other issue was for me to find a theme or a way of working that would allow me room to experiment and a way of developing an idea over quite a large number of repetitive units.

Chris: So what does that mean? It's almost as if you see the whole collection as a single work.

Trevor: Yes for me it is. I set it up like that, every piece is the same size so they are an equal component of a single very large work. One thing that's come out of the project, which I hadn't initially intended to do, is bringing a reflective element into the paintings which you can see in the resin coated works. This has enabled me to play very reflective surfaces against a flat surface which creates a number of effects, I suppose, and it brings the surroundings and the architecture into the work by reflection.

Chris: And the viewers.

Trevor: And the viewers can see themselves within the work. It gives the colour depth, and we can look into the work to see what's down underneath the shiny coloured surface.

Chris: By painting each panel separately and then subsequently putting them into pairs you were introducing an element of chance. I suppose the Howlett subscribers are also entering a game of chance.

Trevor: Yes, they are. They don't really know what they will get.

Recorded November 2007

Untitled 1, 2006 acrylic, spray paint, vinyl, resin on canvas, mdf. 60cm x 120cm

Untitled 2, 2006 acrylic, spray paint, resin on canvas, mdf. 60cm x 120cm

Untitled 3, 2006 acrylic, spray paint on canvas, 60cm x 120cm

Untitled 4, 2006 acrylic, spray paint on canvas, 60cm x 120cm

Untitled 5, 2006 acrylic, spray paint, vinyl, resin on canvas, mdf. 60cm x 120cm

Untitled 6, 2006 acrylic, spray paint, resin on canvas, ply. 60cm x 120cm

Untitled 7, 2006 acrylic, spray paint, resin on canvas, mdf. 60cm x 120cm

Untitled 8, 2006 acrylic, spray paint, resin on canvas, mdf. 60cm x 120cm

Untitled 9, 2006 acrylic, spray paint, vinyl, resin on canvas, mdf. 60cm x 120cm

Untitled 10, 2006 acrylic, spray paint, resin on canvas, mdf. 60cm x 120cm

Untitled 11, 2006 acrylic, spray paint, resin on canvas, mdf. 60cm x 120cm

Untitled 12, 2006 acrylic, spray paint on canvas, ply. 60cm x 120cm

Untitled 13, 2006 acrylic, spray paint on canvas. 60cm x 120cm

Untitled 14, 2006 acrylic, spray paint, resin on canvas, mdf. 60cm x 120cm

Untitled 15, 2006 acrylic, spray paint on canvas. 60cm x 120cm

Untitled 16, 2006 acrylic, spray paint, resin on canvas. 60cm x 120cm

The artist acknowledges (in no particular order):

the mhf board for their selection and empowerment of the artist

Barbara Kletnieks for her assistance

the subscribers for their faith and encouragement over the year

Mark Nilen for his silkscreen expertise

Chris Hill for his thoughtful approach to the difficult task of making sense of my work

Theo Koning for his friendship, guidance and support

Mary, Max and Betty for their love and understanding

The University of Western Australia for technical support and use of Cullity Gallery

Photography by Adrian Lambert Acorn Photography

Julian Goddard and Glenda de Fiddes of Goddard de Fiddes (31 Malcom Street Perth WA 6005)